Context Window Supply

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it does not charge anything, the buyer pays on Stripe, and a security warning against sending card numbers to the server. It stops short of covering authentication requirements or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose comes first, followed by two critical behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description should ideally specify the return value (a checkout link URL), but it only implies this. It covers key behavioral facts and security warnings, yet lacks usage context and parameter guidance. With annotations covering safety and schema defining structure, it is adequate but incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage for top-level parameters is 0%, and the description adds no information about the `items` array or `country` parameter. While the nested schema provides some descriptions for `size` and `color`, the description itself does nothing to clarify parameter semantics or compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Stripe Checkout link for the order.' This clearly distinguishes the tool's function from the sibling tools (get_product, get_shipping_quote, search_products), none of which create checkout links. However, it does not explicitly mention those siblings or further differentiate the scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. 'For the order' hints at context but is too vague to qualify as usage guidelines. An agent must infer the appropriate situation on its own.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' is largely a restatement. The useful addition is disclosing the returned fields (sizes, colors, price), which matters since there is no output schema, but it omits error/not-found behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contents. 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotation, a small amount of waste, but the whole description is minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the salient return fields, which is roughly adequate. It leaves the parameter semantics and not-found behavior unaddressed, so it is viable but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter, product_id, is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no hint about the id format or where it comes from (presumably search_products), so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get one product') and signals single-item retrieval, which implicitly differentiates it from the sibling search_products. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives; the agent must infer from 'one product' that this is a direct lookup after a search rather than a browsing call. Nothing tells the agent when search_products or get_shipping_quote should be preferred instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description repeats 'Read-only' (no added credit) but goes further by disclosing the actual pricing model — per-item first/each-extra rates for tee, hoodie and sticker sheet. That is genuine behavioral detail an agent needs to interpret the quote; it stops short of covering size upcharges, the 10-item cap, or the response shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely dense: one sentence for the return/scope, one for the safety hint, and a compact rate table. Nothing is wasted, though the opening fragment omits a verb, making it slightly telegraphic.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description does state the three returned values and the pricing rules, which covers the core. It omits currency, how multi-item baskets are aggregated, and the US-only constraint on the country parameter, leaving real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is reported at 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does not. It never explains the items array, that product_id and quantity are required, that size/color are required for tees and hoodies, or why country is a US-only enum — the per-product rates only loosely hint at valid product types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the concrete outputs (subtotal, shipping, total) and the scope (US delivery), which is enough to separate it from get_product, search_products and create_checkout_link. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'calculate', but the resource and result are unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the US-only framing and price table suggest this is called to cost an order before checkout, but no sibling is named and there is no statement of when to prefer this over create_checkout_link or when not to call it (e.g. non-US orders).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly states 'Read-only', so no new safety info is added. It does add domain context (what merch exists) which helps the agent frame results, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or empty-result behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource. 'Read-only' is redundant with annotations, slightly wasting space, but overall compact and well-ordered.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A search tool with 0% parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no explanation of result shape or result limits. The description should at minimum clarify how query filters and what a search returns, but instead only describes the catalog domain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and neither parameter is explained. The description mentions product types matching the 'type' enum values, but gives no meaning for 'query' (free text? matching against what fields?) or how the two params combine. It partially compensates by listing the type category but leaves query undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (merch/products), and gives concrete examples (tees, hoodies, stickers) plus the target audience. This distinguishes it from get_product (single item) and create_checkout_link. It doesn't distinguish itself explicitly from siblings in text, but the resource scope is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_product or the checkout tools. The agent must infer that search is for browsing and get_product is for known IDs. No exclusions, no follow-up flow described.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.